Examination of Witnesses (Questions 15540
- 15559)
15540. Then if we go to the next slide, please.[7]
We can see the Port of Felixstowe is identified and you recorded
certain details about it, identifying that it is the fifth largest
container port in Northern Europe. As a port does it compete with
other ports in Northern Europe?
(Mr Harston) We do compete, particularly
with the ports in Rotterdam and Antwerp who also are expanding
very rapidly and are always looking to secure a greater share
of UK trade.
15541. As far as generation of freight by rail
is concerned, can you help the Committee as to the largest single
generator of freight by rail in this country?
(Mr Harston) In terms of
containerised trade, it is by far the port of Felixstowe.
15542. Then you record on those slides in detail
about the volume. We can pass on to slide 7 where we see Felixstowe
South reconfiguration.[8]
This provides for some additional, nearly a kilometre of quay?
(Mr Harston) Very much so.
15543. It increased the capacity to 5.29 million,
and those are called 20 foot equivalent units. That is effectively
half a container as we might recognise it, is it?
(Mr Harston) It is. If you
look at the 40 foot containers that you see on the public highway,
those are two TEUs—I am sure you have been burdened with
lots of railway buzzwords but that is one of our industry terms.
It is how we measure our throughput, 20 foot equivalent units.
15544. This records what happens by way of the
application having been made, the inquiry beginning, planning
permission coming to be granted and a resolution to make a Harbour
Revision Order. The work is still to be undertaken, of course,
physically to construct that?
(Mr Harston) Yes.
15545. That is recognised and permitted by the
Secretary of State. If we go to the next slide, can you help us
there, please, as to these quotations?[9]
(Mr Harston) Yes, in the context
of Felixstowe South because we are actually reconfiguring the
existing port—that is why it is a "reconfiguration"
rather than a "new development"—it was recognised
by the first Secretary of State that the Felixstowe South reconfiguration
would make a contribution to meeting an urgent and recognised
national need, as the slide says; but, importantly, while achieving
improved safety on the roads and increasing the share of goods
by rail. Obviously the Secretary of State for Transport said there
is a pressing need for additional deepwater container facilities
in the UK and that Felixstowe South is suitable for meeting that
need and would do so.
15546. You also record what the Secretary of
State for Transport records, namely a pressing need for additional
deepwater container handling facilities in the United Kingdom
with Felixstowe being suitable for meeting that need and would
do so and the source of the relevant decision letters?
(Mr Harston) Which is very
recent—February 2006.
15547. Mr Straker: Then if we go over
to slide 9, please.[10]
15548. Mr Liddell-Grainger: Mr Straker,
you have made the point very eloquently. We know this is important
and know you have done a lot of work. What I want to know is what
you want us to do. We cannot give you an extra kilometre of landing
space at Felixstowe. I am sure you have come to us with something
to do with Crossrail. Perhaps we could move on.
15549. Mr Straker: Most certainly, sir.
For clarification can we just glance at slides 9 and 10.[11]
The particular reason why it is important to have that in mind
is because the Secretary of State, in deciding to say "Yes,
you can have your new container terminal at Bathside Bay",
which is shown in slide 9 and then spoken to in slide 10, was
because you were saying this is a matter of imperative reason
of overriding public interest that it should be there, with the
freight to go by rail, or a given proportion?
(Mr Harston) Yes.
15550. We then go to slide 11, and we see the
rail performance in 2006.[12]
That identifies, does it, what is happening at the moment?
(Mr Harston) It does. Again,
it is the figures we talked about—slightly over 24 trains
at the moment but, importantly, 18 of those trains, or 36 paths
daily, requiring the transit of the Great Eastern Maine Line,
the railway works that we talked about earlier
15551. Thank you. Then if we go to slide 12,
please.[13]
You will see the situation in 2014.
(Mr Harston) At that stage our
forecasts, which are in the public domain, predict 30 train departures
from Bathside Bay, and Felixstowe at that stage (because Bathside
Bay, the first stage, will be developed) generates 677,000 containers
annually; but again, importantly in the context of the debate
here, 22 trains a day via the Great Eastern Main Line, or 44 paths.
15552. We can note, can we, that this was all
agreed with the Strategic Rail Authority and the Highways Agency
at the public inquiries?
(Mr Harston) It was indeed,
at both public inquiries—Felixstowe South and for the Harwich
International Container Terminal.
15553. The public inquiries have taken something
in excess of six months?
(Mr Harston) That is correct.
15554. Then you have the position at slide 13
for Haven Ports rail requirements 2023.[14]
You have done on this slide a similar picture but of course with
different numbers by this stage, where you are looking at 47 train
departures from the Haven Ports each day in 2023?
(Mr Harston) That is correct.
Again, this was our transport assessment, our own planning forecasts
and the 15-year period that we considered in terms of traffic
generation from our ports, and the impact that those volumes would
have on the national network; but also the requirements of the
Highways Agency and the Strategic Rail Authority to increase the
modal share and get more goods on rail through Felixstowe and
in turn, importantly, that would then take us in excess of a million
containers annually moving by rail from the two developments;
and, very importantly, 34 trains daily via the Great Eastern,
or 68 paths.
15555. How did it come to pass that 2023 was
looked at?
(Mr Harston) Because that was 15 years from
the date of implementation of the works, which was the period
we agreed to consider.
15556. Then you refer at slide 14 to a joint
study/statement of common ground.[15]
Can you help us about this document, please?
(Mr Harston) I have got a copy
here; it is not a document that we are intending to submit but
it is publicly available on the planning inspectorate website.
The joint study approach and statement of common ground was the
way, through our own public inquiries, we approached the issue
of future rail and road capacity. In terms of railways the joint
study and the statement was produced in conjunction with the Strategic
Rail Authority, Suffolk County Council and Suffolk Coastal District
Council. The findings that came out of the joint study and the
recommendations of works to be undertaken were verified by Network
Rail and, importantly, the Strategic Access Planning Team, the
SAP team, within that; and that the conclusions, very briefly
stated there, were that the Great Eastern Main Line, in combination
with the North London Line (and you have heard a lot about railways
and roads, this is the M25 around London as far as our trains
are concerned) can provide enough capacity for a 25% share in
the Felixstowe South only scenario, and that until 2017 there
are enough paths.
15557. Mr Liddell-Grainger: Mr Straker,
we understand; you have made your point; the Committee has got
it. Can we move on? We are delighted about the roads in Suffolk
but we want to know what you want us to do for you?
15558. Mr Straker: Of course, sir. Can
it just be noted there, that last point in evidence being given,
that there is presently sufficient capacity which has been identified
as present until 2017 as recorded there, and until 2018. Can we
just glance through slide 15, because there we see what it was
that HPUK actually did by way of works to the national railway
network and how that was dealt with and has been reported to the
Secretary of State, and similarly on slide 16.[16][17]
Slide 17 records the importance of non-displacement of rail traffic;
and that is verified again in slides 18 and 19 and what actually
happens.[18][19][20]
Then if we just go on to slide 20, please.[21]
We can see there the approach that was followed at HPUK public
inquiries. The design year taken; committed developments must
be included in assessment; wider impacts must be considered. Pausing
there, for example Doncaster, how far do the works that you have
been asked to undertake extend?
(Mr Harston) Doncaster, for instance,
is approximately 180 miles from Felixstowe, and we are required
to consider works and impacts through to what was termed the "South
Yorkshire terminals" The impact of the Port of Felixstowe
and Harwich developments, located as they are in Suffolk and Essex,
were considered to have an effect as far afield as Selby, Doncaster
and Leeds. We as Hutchison Ports were required to provide a solution;
importantly to fund those works, which one of the earlier points
on slide 15, I think, noted—that, Crossrail aside, I think
we do probably represent the largest private sector investment
in the railway network. My company will be paying something of
the order of £75 million for railway works, for which it
is very important that we secure this capacity to support our
schemes, and for which my shareholders (like some of the other
Petitioners that have been before you) are looking for the certainty
and security, so that investment achieves the return it was designed
to.
15559. Then we go to slide 22, please.[22]
Here we see the problem. Can you just take us through this, please?
(Mr Harston) Indeed, notwithstanding
the points that were made at the opening today, I think Mr Watson's
work of last week did identify that Crossrail worsens capacity
on the Great Eastern by a further eight paths in 2015. From our
point of view we do not believe that the forecasts we could have
provided were taken account of in any shape or form, nor the statements
that had been made previously by at least the Strategic Rail Authority
with work provided by the SAP team which identified that our work
had sufficient capacity until at least 2017. We do believe that
Crossrail worsens the available rail capacity, specifically on
the Great Eastern but, importantly, therefore on the route through
the North London Line and connectivity for the rest of the country;
that Crossrail did not consider committed, nationally important
developments such as our own; and that there appears to be no
certainty about the real impact of Crossrail specifically as far
as our own freight impact on the network is concerned.
7 Committee Ref: A173, Port of Felixstowe (LINEWD-11705-007). Back
8
Committee Ref: A173, Felixstowe South Reconfiguration (LINEWD-11705-008). Back
9
Committee Ref: A173, Felixstowe South Reconfiguration (LINEWD-11705-009). Back
10
Committee Ref: A173, Harwich International Container Terminal
at Bathside Bay (LINEWD-11705-010). Back
11
Committee Ref: A173, Harwich International Container Terminal
at Bathside Bay (LINEWD-11705-011). Back
12
Committee Ref: A173, Current 2006 Felixstowe Rail Performance
(LINEWD-11705-012). Back
13
Committee Ref: A173, Predicted Haven Ports Rail Requirements
2014 (LINEWD-11705-013). Back
14
Committee Ref: A173, Predicted Haven Ports Rail Requirements
2023 (LINEWD-11705-014). Back
15
Committee Ref: A173, Joint Study/ Statement of Common Ground
(LINEWD-11705-015). Back
16
Committee Ref: A173, HPUK Rail Works to National Railway Network
(LINEWD-11705-016). Back
17
Committee Ref: A173, HPUK Rail Works (LINEWD-11705-017). Back
18
Committee Ref: A173, Displacement of Rail Traffic (LINEWD-11705-018
). Back
19
Committee Ref: A173, Displacement of Rail Traffic (LINEWD-11705-019). Back
20
Committee Ref: A173, Displacement of Rail Traffic- Environmental
Consequences (LINEWD-11705-020). Back
21
Committee Ref: A173, Approach at HPUK Public Inquiries (LINEWD-11705-021). Back
22
Committee Ref: A173, HPUK-Problem (LINEWD-11705-022). Back
| 
